Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JAIME N. GAPAYAO v. ROSARIO FULO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 179640 2015-03-18	HACIENDA CATAYWA v. ROSARIO LOREZO PERALTA, J.
At the outset, it is settled that this Court is not a trier of facts and will not weigh evidence all over again.[15] However, considering the issues raised which can be resolved on the basis of the pleadings and documents filed, and the fact that respondent herself has asked this Court for early resolution, this Court deems it more practical and in the greater interest of justice not to remand the case to the CA but, instead, to resolve the controversy once and for all.
	GR No. 179640 2015-03-18	HACIENDA CATAYWA v. ROSARIO LOREZO PERALTA, J.
Jurisprudence has identified the three types of employees mentioned in the provision[20] of the Labor Code: (1) regular employees or those who have been engaged to perform activities that are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer; (2) project employees or those whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of their engagement, or those whose work or service is seasonal in nature and is performed for the duration of the season; and (3) casual employees or those who are neither regular nor project employees.[21]
	GR No. 199554 2015-02-18	ZENAIDA PAZ v. NORTHERN TOBACCO REDRYING CO. LEONEN, J.
Jurisprudence also recognizes the status of regular seasonal employees.[40]
	GR No. 200857 2014-10-22	FVR SKILLS v. JOVERT SEVA BRION, J.
The primary standard in determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee and the employer's business or trade. This connection can be ascertained by considering the nature of the work performed and its relation to the scheme of the particular business, or the trade in its entirety.[25]
	GR No. 195466 2014-07-02	ARIEL L. DAVID v. JOHN G. MACASIO BRION, J.
Under this overall setup, all those working for David, including Macasio, could naturally be expected to observe certain rules and requirements and David would necessarily exercise some degree of control as the chopping of the hog meats would be subject to his specifications. Also, since Macasio performed his tasks at David's workplace, David could easily exercise control and supervision over the former. Accordingly, whether or not David actually exercised this right or power to control is beside the point as the law simply requires the existence of this power to control [42][43] or, as in this case, the existence of the right and opportunity to control and supervise Macasio.[44]